TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat call BS on Government plans to exclude YouTube from Social Media Age ban

This is hardly a surprise to anyone, but the Government’s plans to give YouTube an explicit exclusion from the upcoming Social Media ban has brought the three biggest tech companies into alignment in their submissions to Government over the draft online safety rules.

Legislation to implement the Social Media Ban for kids under 16 passed the Parliament late last year, with an implementation date of the end of 2025. Before then, Australia’s Minister for Communications needs to formalise the “Online Safety Rules” which are a set of rules which will narrow the scope of the ban to the platforms targeted by the Government.

Despite committing to a public consultation period, the Department has opted for a “Targeted Consultation”, reaching out to Affected companies, and interested groups for feedback on the draft rules.

A closed consultation like this would mean that the public never get to see the submissions being made and therefor understand the decisions made by the Minister, fortunately the major tech companies involved have shared their submissions with EFTM allowing us to see just how they make their case to the minister.

At the core of the submissions from Meta (Instagram and Facebook), TikTok and Snap (Snapchat), is the plan to exclude YouTube from the regulation, thus allowing kids under 16 unrestricted access to the platform.

While the minister has mentioned the educational benefits of YouTube, they have not listed YouTube as an exemption under the allowed “Health and Education” function. Instead, YouTube is singled at as a platform for exemption, the Discussion paper saying “While the platform undoubtedly functions as a source of entertainment and leisure, it is an important source of education and informational content, relied on by children, parents and carers, and educational institutions. This contrasts substantially with other content streaming services”

EFTM’s own research showed that comparing TikTok to YouTube demonstrated no clear Educational benefit, so the lack of transparency around this decision needs some explination.

That seems to be the crux of the tech giant’s submissions.

Snap Inc saying clearly “there must be a fair and impartial application of exclusions and all services should be held to the same standard. We see no reason why preferential treatment should be given to any specific companies and services through the rules in such a way that those companies and services do not need to satisfy the grounds for exclusion that all other services must be measured by. As above, we believe the eSafety Commissioner’s risk assessment should inform the Government’s approach to exemptions from the law, rather than arbitrary exclusions for certain companies and platforms.”

Meta looked at the educational element of the discussion, saying “Whilst there may be some beneficial educational and informational content on YouTube (just as there is on Facebook and Instagram), this does not justify YouTube’s exclusion from the account-based minimum age obligation.”

Adding “The proposed differential treatment of YouTube is therefore inconsistent in circumstances where account-based YouTube has all the same features (being those outlined above) that other social media platforms do. “

Questioning the actual impact of the ban if the exemption for YouTube goes ahead, TikTok says “The proposed differential treatment of YouTube is therefore inconsistent in circumstances where account-based YouTube has all the same features (being those outlined above) that other social media platforms do. “

The Viral video platform has some strong words for the “Sweetheart deal” being given to YouTube, calling it “illogical, anti-competitive and short-sighted”

Going into detail TikTok says “It is illogical, because YouTube’s functions and features – particularly those of its short-form video platform, “Shorts” – are virtually indistinguishable from its peers’, and because arguments for YouTube’s “unique” educative value are incorrect.“

“It is anti-competitive, because giving YouTube monopoly access to under-16 users in Australia would undermine competition, stifle innovation, and further entrench Google’s market dominance in an already concentrated digital ecosystem.”

“It is short-sighted, because exempting any single platform by name fails to account for how platforms evolve and change over time.”

Frankly, reading these submissions, I have greater concerns than ever about the effect of this ban at all – given the ban only prevents the creation of an account by kids under 16, not restricting the apps from showing any content.

Meta mentions this when explaining that YouTube “educational” content can be viewed by anyone, even without an account. Saying that there was no justification for the YouTube exclusion “A key reason for this is that the benefits of YouTube are available to young people without them needing to hold an account. For example, young people can view educational or informational content through the account of a parent, carer or teacher, or in a ‘logged-out’ state completely. An Australian study identified that the majority of teachers surveyed preferred to show YouTube videos on a shared projector screen rather than individual screens to facilitate learning outcomes. Even if educational content is required to be viewed on a young person’s own screen, an account is not required to do this given the minimum age obligation does not affect their access to content in a ‘logged-out’ state “

Facebook’s parent company concluded by saying “While Meta is concerned about the lack of evidence and transparency on how this law was passed and is being implemented, we call on the government to ensure equal application of the law across all social media services. “

TikTok echoed those sentiments, saying “We strongly urge the Government to reconsider its proposed approach, and to design Rules that are fair, transparent, effective, and consistent for all social media platforms.”

The media support for this social media ban means there’s not a huge focus on this stage of the implementation process, and that’s disastrous for the outcomes for young people.

We deserve an open and fully transparent process. The Governement has done nothing to explain their YouTube exemption, that needs urgent attention.